Jared Flores
Annotation 8: The Forest for the Trees
1.Title, director, and release year?
The Forest for the Trees, directed by Bernadine Mellis, released in 2006
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film’s central argument revolves around the flaws in this country’s court system. The film tells the story of Judi Bari’s struggle to redeem both her name and the name of protesters everywhere. She is attacked one day by a radical bombing, but is herself blamed for the bombing under allegations of being a terrorist. Before she dies, she leaves a testimony for her lawyer, Dennis Cunningham, to present in court. The film clearly depicts Cunningham’s frustration, as the FBI, whom Cunningham opposes in court, is presenting evidence that has no factual basis, and the judge is clearly on the FBI’s side. In the end, Cunningham wins the case, and manages to clear Bari’s name.
3.What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main problem that the film draws out is the legal system as a sustainability problem. In between court sessions, Cunningham often expressed his frustration with the current legal system. He stated that the judge is basically completely in control of what goes on in the court room. The judge had prevented certain people with crucial information from testifying, which effectively weakened Cunningham’s case. Biases such as these are sadly often exhibited in a court room setting. This human bias factor often interferes with court proceedings, and makes the law unfair. Also, although Judi Bari had filed defamation of character charges, among others, against the FBI, it was 12 years before the case went to trial, showing how slow and inefficient the judicial system can be.
Another sustainability problem this film draws out is environmental sustainability. The film explains that 97% of the world’s redwood trees have been cut down by logging companies. The film documents the extreme over logging conducted by these companies, and that at the current rate, the remaining 3% of redwood trees don’t have much time left. The film also showed the extreme extents to which protesters went to save the trees, including forming human chains and tree spiking. However, Bari vowed to do away with tree spiking, as it was causing injury to the loggers, which she and many others felt was counterintuitive to the message that Earth First was trying to send.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film which I found most compelling was the part where Cunningham was in a restaurant with his daughter and went on a tirade about the corrupt judicial system. I felt that the language he used, such as curse words, showed just how frustrated he was with the court system. He was clearly upset to see that the judge was clearly in favor of the FBI, and that he had to follow procedure even though he was so angry. Not only that, this scene showed just how emotionally invested Cunningham was in the case. This type of behavior is refreshing to see in a lawyer of all people, and it was also nice to see that at his age, he still expressed dissatisfaction with the way things are.
Another part of the film I found compelling was the trial itself. To see that the FBI would tell stories in contradiction to those of the witnesses and that they would do verbal dances around the truth showed that most of the FBI agents who were called to the stand did not have a real case, and their only reason for accusing Judi Bari was to defame Earth First. The FBI’s two main arguments were that the pipe bomb in Judi’s car was in plain view, and that the nails found in the back of the car were the same as the ones in the pipe bomb. However, evidence was found proving that the bomb was under Judi’s seat and out of sight, and the nails found in the back of the car were not at all similar to the ones in the bomb. It was very shocking to see that the FBI would adamantly defend their case without having any evidence to back it up.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was underwhelmed by any part of the movie that had commentary by that Allison girl. To me, she seemed unintelligent and rather simple, and any comment she made was either stating the obvious, or questioning a well established fact while offering no real argument. She may well be a very intelligent individual, and may have contributed a great deal to the effort, but to me, any scene with her was excruciating. It really detracted from the central argument of the movie. They would have done well not to include her, in my honest opinion.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The movie itself only offered a cursory glance at the actual court proceedings regarding the Judi Bari case. This movie inspired me to seek out more information on the Judi Bari v. the Federal Bureau of Intelligence case, and to discern what about the case doesn’t sit right with Cunningham. I would also very much like to learn more about the different ways in which Earth First protests logging, and what other sorts of practices they protest. I would also like to study the effect that the result of the trial had on the way in which the FBI interacts with protesters, as well as how Earth First is viewed by the public. Doing so will help me to understand what impact, if any, this trial had, and to understand whether or not Bari’s trial accomplished what she had in mind.
7.What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film best addresses any aspiring law students. The film really does take a good look at the frustration some lawyers have with the judicial system. Hopefully, watching this movie will help inspire future lawyers to want to change things for the better. In doing do, hopefully law will become more sustainable and more equal and fair. This film also addresses an audience with an interest in protecting the environment. The film depicts the non violent practices of Earth First and what they stand for. The film demonstrates the oppression which some protesters experience from law enforcement. This film will hopefully inspire environmentalists to band together with their Earth First brethren and help to preserve the names of protesters everywhere by making it clear that they are looking to help the environment, but not at the cost of the safety of their fellow man.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests non-violent protesting as a way to help sustain the logging industry. It is made clear in the film that logging companies are overdoing it, and that protest is a necessary part of preserving what is left of the forests. The film also makes it clear that protesters should not look to be enemies with the companies they protest, but rather maintain a friendly rivalry. Logging companies are needed to provide the wood that so many people rely on, and protesters are needed to help define the boundaries for those companies.
9.What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to see more about how the Earth First group protests. The film’s main focus is on the trial, so not too much is offered in terms of how Earth First operates. I believe that showing more of Earth First would really help to illustrate the problems that they face every day, as opposed to just in the incidence of Judi Bari. The sustainability problem of the legal system is an important issue, but considering how the movie is about an environmentalist organization, I feel that the film could have included more about their struggle.
Annotation 8: The Forest for the Trees
1. Title, director, and release year?
The Forest for the Trees, directed by Bernadine Mellis, released in 2006
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film’s central argument revolves around the flaws in this country’s court system. The film tells the story of Judi Bari’s struggle to redeem both her name and the name of protesters everywhere. She is attacked one day by a radical bombing, but is herself blamed for the bombing under allegations of being a terrorist. Before she dies, she leaves a testimony for her lawyer, Dennis Cunningham, to present in court. The film clearly depicts Cunningham’s frustration, as the FBI, whom Cunningham opposes in court, is presenting evidence that has no factual basis, and the judge is clearly on the FBI’s side. In the end, Cunningham wins the case, and manages to clear Bari’s name.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main problem that the film draws out is the legal system as a sustainability problem. In between court sessions, Cunningham often expressed his frustration with the current legal system. He stated that the judge is basically completely in control of what goes on in the court room. The judge had prevented certain people with crucial information from testifying, which effectively weakened Cunningham’s case. Biases such as these are sadly often exhibited in a court room setting. This human bias factor often interferes with court proceedings, and makes the law unfair. Also, although Judi Bari had filed defamation of character charges, among others, against the FBI, it was 12 years before the case went to trial, showing how slow and inefficient the judicial system can be.
Another sustainability problem this film draws out is environmental sustainability. The film explains that 97% of the world’s redwood trees have been cut down by logging companies. The film documents the extreme over logging conducted by these companies, and that at the current rate, the remaining 3% of redwood trees don’t have much time left. The film also showed the extreme extents to which protesters went to save the trees, including forming human chains and tree spiking. However, Bari vowed to do away with tree spiking, as it was causing injury to the loggers, which she and many others felt was counterintuitive to the message that Earth First was trying to send.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film which I found most compelling was the part where Cunningham was in a restaurant with his daughter and went on a tirade about the corrupt judicial system. I felt that the language he used, such as curse words, showed just how frustrated he was with the court system. He was clearly upset to see that the judge was clearly in favor of the FBI, and that he had to follow procedure even though he was so angry. Not only that, this scene showed just how emotionally invested Cunningham was in the case. This type of behavior is refreshing to see in a lawyer of all people, and it was also nice to see that at his age, he still expressed dissatisfaction with the way things are.
Another part of the film I found compelling was the trial itself. To see that the FBI would tell stories in contradiction to those of the witnesses and that they would do verbal dances around the truth showed that most of the FBI agents who were called to the stand did not have a real case, and their only reason for accusing Judi Bari was to defame Earth First. The FBI’s two main arguments were that the pipe bomb in Judi’s car was in plain view, and that the nails found in the back of the car were the same as the ones in the pipe bomb. However, evidence was found proving that the bomb was under Judi’s seat and out of sight, and the nails found in the back of the car were not at all similar to the ones in the bomb. It was very shocking to see that the FBI would adamantly defend their case without having any evidence to back it up.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was underwhelmed by any part of the movie that had commentary by that Allison girl. To me, she seemed unintelligent and rather simple, and any comment she made was either stating the obvious, or questioning a well established fact while offering no real argument. She may well be a very intelligent individual, and may have contributed a great deal to the effort, but to me, any scene with her was excruciating. It really detracted from the central argument of the movie. They would have done well not to include her, in my honest opinion.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The movie itself only offered a cursory glance at the actual court proceedings regarding the Judi Bari case. This movie inspired me to seek out more information on the Judi Bari v. the Federal Bureau of Intelligence case, and to discern what about the case doesn’t sit right with Cunningham. I would also very much like to learn more about the different ways in which Earth First protests logging, and what other sorts of practices they protest. I would also like to study the effect that the result of the trial had on the way in which the FBI interacts with protesters, as well as how Earth First is viewed by the public. Doing so will help me to understand what impact, if any, this trial had, and to understand whether or not Bari’s trial accomplished what she had in mind.
7. What audience does this film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film best addresses any aspiring law students. The film really does take a good look at the frustration some lawyers have with the judicial system. Hopefully, watching this movie will help inspire future lawyers to want to change things for the better. In doing do, hopefully law will become more sustainable and more equal and fair.
This film also addresses an audience with an interest in protecting the environment. The film depicts the non violent practices of Earth First and what they stand for. The film demonstrates the oppression which some protesters experience from law enforcement. This film will hopefully inspire environmentalists to band together with their Earth First brethren and help to preserve the names of protesters everywhere by making it clear that they are looking to help the environment, but not at the cost of the safety of their fellow man.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests non-violent protesting as a way to help sustain the logging industry. It is made clear in the film that logging companies are overdoing it, and that protest is a necessary part of preserving what is left of the forests. The film also makes it clear that protesters should not look to be enemies with the companies they protest, but rather maintain a friendly rivalry. Logging companies are needed to provide the wood that so many people rely on, and protesters are needed to help define the boundaries for those companies.
9. What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to see more about how the Earth First group protests. The film’s main focus is on the trial, so not too much is offered in terms of how Earth First operates. I believe that showing more of Earth First would really help to illustrate the problems that they face every day, as opposed to just in the incidence of Judi Bari. The sustainability problem of the legal system is an important issue, but considering how the movie is about an environmentalist organization, I feel that the film could have included more about their struggle.